Note: "Inactive" refers to Strategic Members or PMCs we have not heard from for a while, and have been unable to convince to participate. Those members can become active again at any time. Contact David Williams if questions.

Announcements

Any?

Indigo SR2

Success? Feedback?

Issue to discuss and decide if we need a plan of action: p2 content metadata at SR2 is 3 times what it is at SR0.

Should our common "release repo" contain only the latest code? And "move" older stuff to different site? The different site would be named something like .../releases/juno/complete or or something, and be simply a different composite (no duplication of actual artifacts). This site would not be "built in" to any update repo lists, but could be used by builds or others that needed "the old stuff". I think if someone updated, and then wanted to revert or rollback the change, they might also have to manually add the ".../releases/juno/complete" URL to their list of sites (assuming p2 GC had cleaned off the old stuff. Please read the msg chain on p2-dev list. There is a trade off of function and performance and want to be sure everyone is aware of it and if anyone has any opinions on if we currently have the right choice.

Another solution might be to aggregate new stuff, with old, which would have added advantage of making sure all was compatible ... but, a) not sure it would be much smaller and b) requires all projects to do an "expert job" of versioning.

No bug yet, but I've gotten some email one might be open to "remove categories" from Indigo SR0 and SR1 repositories, to "complete" the fix for the problem caused by linuxtools changing feature IDs in SR2 bug 371302. As is, 6 features show up in "linux tools" category, but 3 are for SR1 and 3 are for SR2 and they can not be all installed (at once, at least).

An issues/thoughts on this? Allowable? Desirable? Not?

Juno

Ready for M6?

Issues or Exceptions

Any issues? Everyone in? Any exceptions known?

Exceptions for projects not in M4, that still will to join Juno:

Virgo approved during 1/05 meeting (from rt PMC list, will be in M6)

BPEL approved on mailing list (as late for M4, but in M5)

Code Recommenders approved on mailing list (as late for M4, but in M5).

Koneki project approved on mailing list (as late for M5, but joining in M6).

Others?

Anyone "dropping out" that should be removed from aggregation build?

removed following b3aggrcon files, for M6:

dsdp-mjt

emf-teneo

emf-mint

m2t-jet

tools-sequoyah

stp

What to do about Papyrus (and XWT dependency), both in general (bug 370974), and specific for this case.

Plans

anything to look at? In particular, plans specifying "planned support for 3.8 workbench"?

Other Business

Project Priorities: Please review and be prepared to discuss this proposed "policy document" about project priorities.

One issue: should we mention LTS? Technically ... it is not in our mission or scope.

bug 361628 Will this be an issue? Fix possible? Won't literally be a problem if everyone published both jar.pack.gz files and jars, but would be inefficient (ending up with "failures" with pack.gz files, and then downloading jars if using Java 7.